Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T08:04:25.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community structure and ecological specialization in plant–ant interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Paola A. Barriga ,
Carsten F. Dormann ,
Edward E. Gbur  and
Cynthia L Sagers
Paola A. Barriga*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA72701 Department of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Carsten F. Dormann
Affiliation:
Biometry & Environmental System Analysis, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
Edward E. Gbur
Affiliation:
Agricultural Statistics Laboratory, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas
Cynthia L Sagers
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA72701
*
1Corresponding author. Email: paobarriga@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Environmental effects on species interactions can be studied by comparative analyses of network structure. For example, comparison of interaction networks among study sites can provide clues to geographic variation of host breadth. Obligate plant–ant interactions are ideal systems to explore these phenomena because they are long term and can be accurately sampled in the field. We tested two hypotheses: (1) network structure and host specialization do not vary among communities, and (2) the effects of plant extinction do not vary among communities. We sampled 10 or more plants for each of the 30 ant–plant species found in three Neotropical locations. We found that network specialization, H2′, was significantly higher than expected in random networks. The ant or plant specialization index, d′, distribution did not vary among localities, neither varied in link or asymmetry distribution. Plant extinction simulations showed that these interactions are vulnerable to plant loss, and the null model was more robust than the observed networks. This study provides a foundation on which plant and ant phylogenies can be added to explore compartment evolution.

Keywords

antsNeotropical forestnetworksplantssimulationsymbiosis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 2015 , pp. 325 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

AGRESTI, A. 2007. An introduction to categorical data analysis. (Second edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York. 290 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AIZEN, M. A., SABATINO, M. & TYLIANAKIS, J. M. 2012. Specialization and rarity predict nonrandom loss of interactions from mutualist networks. Science 335:1486–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ALMEIDA-NETO, M. & ULRICH, W. 2011. A straightforward computational approach for measuring nestedness using quantitative matrices. Environmental Modelling & Software 26:173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ALMEIDA-NETO, M., GUIMARAES, P., GUIMARÃES, P. R., LOYOLA, R. D. & ULRICH, W. 2008. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASS, M. S., FINER, M., JENKINS, C. N., KREFT, H., CISNEROS-HEREDIA, D. F., MCCRACKEN, S. F., PITMAN, N. C., ENGLISH, P. H., SWING, K. & VILLA, G. 2010. Global conservation significance of Ecuador's Yasuní National Park. PloS ONE 5:e8767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BLÜTHGEN, N. 2010. Why network analysis is often disconnected from community ecology: a critique and an ecologist's guide. Basic and Applied Ecology 11:185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N. & FIEDLER, K. 2004. Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLÜTHGEN, N., MENZEL, F. & BLÜTHGEN, N. 2006. Measuring specialization in species interaction networks. Bio Med Central Ecology 6:1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
BURGOS, E., CEVA, H., PERAZZO, R. P. J., DEVOTO, M., MEDAN, D., ZIMMERMANN, M. & DELBUE, A. M. 2007. Why nestedness in mutualistic networks? Journal of Theoretical Biology 249:307–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CADOL, D. & WOHL, E. 2010. Wood retention and transport in tropical, headwater streams, La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Geomorphology 123:61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DÁTTILO, W., IZZO, T. J., VASCONCELOS, H. L. & RICO-GRAY, V. 2013. Strength of the modular pattern in Amazonian symbiotic ant–plant networks. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 7:455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAVIDSON, D. W. & MCKEY, D. 1993. The evolutionary ecology of symbiotic ant-plant relationships. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 2:13–83.Google Scholar
DIAZ-CASTELAZO, C., GUIMARÃES, P. R., JORDANO, P., THOMPSON, J. N., MARQUIS, R. J. & RICO-GRAY, V. 2010. Changes of a mutualistic network over time: reanalysis over a 10-year period. Ecology 91:793–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DORMANN, C. F. & STRAUSS, R. 2014. A method for detecting modules in quantitative bipartite networks. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DORMANN, C. F., FRÜND, J., BLÜTHGEN, N. & GRUBER, B. 2009. Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecology Journal 2:7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DYER, L. A., WALLA, T. R., GREENEY, H. F., STIREMAN, J. O. & HAZEN, R. F. 2010. Diversity of interactions: a metric for studies of biodiversity. Biotropica 42:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EMER, C., VENTICINQUE, E. M. & FONSECA, C. R. 2013. Effects of dam-induced landscape fragmentation on Amazonian ant–plant mutualistic networks. Conservation Biology 27:763–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GUIMARÃES, P. R., RICO-GRAY, V., OLIVEIRA, P. S., IZZO, T. J., DOS REIS, S. F. & THOMPSON, J. N. 2007. Interaction intimacy affects structure and coevolutionary dynamics in mutualistic networks. Current Biology 17:1797–1803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HAMMEL, B. 1990. The distribution of diversity among families, genera and habit types in the La Selva flora. Pp. 75–84 in Gentry, A. H. (ed.). Four Neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
HARTSHORN, G. S. & HAMMEL, B. 1994. Vegetation types and floristic patterns. Pp. 73–89 in McDade, L. A., Bawa, K. S. & Hespenheide, H. A. (eds.). La Selva. Ecology and natural history of a Neotropical rain forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
HEIL, M. & MCKEY, D. 2003. Protective ant-plant interactions as model systems in ecological and evolutionary research. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JORDANO, P. 1987. Patterns of mutualistic interactions in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetries, and coevolution. American Naturalist 129:657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KAISER-BUNBURY, C. N., MUFF, S., MEMMOTT, J., MÜLLER, C. B. & CAFLISCH, A. 2010. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecology Letters 13:442–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KIMURA, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16:111–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
KREBS, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Addison-Wesley Educational Publisher, Menlo Park. 620 pp.Google Scholar
LONGINO, J. T. 1989. Geographic variation and community structure in an ant-plant mutualism: Azteca and Cecropia in Costa Rica. Biotropica 21:126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LONGINO, J. T. 1991. Taxonomy of the Cecropia-inhabiting Azteca ants. Journal of Natural History 25:1571–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LONGINO, J. T. 2007. A taxonomic review of the genus Azteca (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Costa Rica and a global revision of the Aurita group. Zootaxa 1491:1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCDADE, L. & HARTSHORN, G. 1994. La Selva Biological Station. Pp. 6–14 in McDade, L., Bawa, K., Hespenheide, H. & Hartshorn, G. (eds.). La Selva: ecology and natural history of a neotropical rain forest. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
MEMMOTT, J., WASER, N. M. & PRICE, M. V. 2004. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271:2605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PASSMORE, H. A., BRUNA, E. M., HEREDIA, S. M. & VASCONCELOS, H. L. 2012. Resilient networks of ant-plant mutualists in Amazonian forest fragments. PloS ONE 7:e40803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PITMAN, N. C. A., TERBORGH, J., SILMAN, M. R. & NUÑEZ, V. P. 1999. Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80:2651–2661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RICO-GRAY, V., GARCIA-FRANCO, J. G., PALACIOS-RIOS, M., DIAZ-CASTELAZO, C., PARRA-TABLA, V. & NAVARRO, J. A. 1998. Geographical and seasonal variation in the richness of ant-plant interactions in Mexico. Biotropica 30:190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHLEUNING, M., FRÜND, J., KLEIN, A. M., ABRAHAMCZYK, S., ALARCÓN, R., ALBRECHT, M., ANDERSSON, G. K. S., BAZARIAN, S., BÖHNING-GAESE, K., BOMMARCO, R., DALSGAARD, B., DEHLING, D. M., GOTLIEB, A., HAGEN, M., HICKLER, T., HOLZSCHUH, A., KAISER-BUNBURY, C. N., KREFT, H., MORRIS, R. J., SANDEL, B., SUTHERLAND, W. J., SVENNING, J.-C., TSCHARNTKE, T., WATTS, S., WEINER, C. N., WERNER, M., WILLIAMS, N. M., WINQVIST, C., DORMANN, C. F. & BLÜTHGEN, N. 2012. Specialization of mutualistic interaction networks decreases toward tropical latitudes. Current Biology 22:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SMITH, M. A., RODRIGUEZ, J. J., WHITFIELD, J. B., DEANS, A. R., JANZEN, D. H., HALLWACHS, W. & HEBERT, P. D. N. 2008. Extreme diversity of tropical parasitoid wasps exposed by iterative integration of natural history, DNA barcoding, morphology, and collections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:12359–12364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
STUART, A., ORD, K. J. & ARNOLD, S. 1999. Classical inference and the linear model. Kendall's advanced theory of statistics. (Sixth edition). Edward Arnold, London. 885 pp.Google Scholar
THOMPSON, J. N. 2005. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 443 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VALENCIA, R., CONDIT, R., FOSTER, R. B., ROMOLEROUX, K., VILLA MUÑOZ, G., SVENNING, J.-C., MAGÅRD, E., BASS, M., LOSOS, E. C. & BALSLEV, H. 2004a. Yasuni Forest Dynamics Plot, Ecuador. Pp. 609–620 in Losos, E. C. & Leigh, E. G. (eds.). Tropical forest diversity and dynamism. Findings from a large-scale plot network. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
VALENCIA, R., CONDIT, R., ROMOLEROUX, K., FOSTER, R. B., VILLA MUÑOZ, G., LOSOS, E. C., BALSLEV, H., SVENNING, J.-C. & MAGÅRD, E. 2004b. Tree species diversity and distribution in a forest plot at Yasuni National Park, Amazonian Ecuador. Pp. 107–118 in Losos, E. C. & Leigh, E. G. (eds.). Tropical forest diversity and dynamism. Findings from a large-scale plot network. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
VÁZQUEZ, D. P. & AIZEN, M. A. 2003. Null model analyses of specialization in plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 84:2493–2501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar